The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that Brown’s confession could be used against him at trial, affirming a ruling by the state Court of Appeals that reversed Woodrum’s order excluding the man’s confession at trial.

According to court documents, Brown confessed while being interviewed by two Effingham County Sheriff’s Office investigators — Sgt. Don White and Detective John Bradley.

The confession was excluded in 2010 by Woodrum, who ruled that the investigators’ promise to Brown that he could go home after speaking with them created an improper “hope of benefit,” amounting to a promise he would not face criminal charges if he admitted the allegations.

The Supreme Court disagreed, writing that the promise by the officers was not improper as long as the statements did not amount to a promise that he would never be charged, or face reduced charges or a reduced sentence.

“Here the officers never said or implied to appellant that if he confessed what he had done to the child no criminal charges would ever be filed against him, nor did they promise reduced punishment,” the opinion said.

According to court documents detailing the video-taped interview of Brown, Brown was told he could leave the interview anytime he wanted. Brown asked Bradley and White what would be done if he had molested the child.

White replied that he couldn’t tell him what a judge would do. “We can’t promise you anything or tell you anything,” he said. “What I can tell you is you’ll go home. When you leave here no matter what you tell me or what you say.”

Bradley told Brown that he would be going home “unless you killed somebody. You killed somebody, you ain’t going home.”

Brown admitted molesting the boy. The investigators then read Brown his Miranda rights. Brown repeated his admission and was arrested immediately.

“A promise not relating to charges or sentences, including a promise regarding release after questioning, has been held to constitute only a ‘collateral benefit’ … and even if it induces a confession, it does not require the automatic exclusion of that evidence,” Justice David E. Nahmias wrote.